Index ← 1278 CFJ 1279a 1279 → text
============================  Appeal 1279a  ============================

Panelist:                               Steve
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               lee
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Wes

Panelist:                               Razl

Panelist:                               Crito
Decision:                               REASSIGN



Appeal initiated:                       05 Mar 2001 23:23:26 GMT
Assigned to Steve (panelist):           30 Mar 2001 10:14:35 GMT
Assigned to lee (panelist):             30 Mar 2001 10:14:35 GMT
Assigned to Wes (panelist):             30 Mar 2001 10:14:35 GMT
Steve moves to REASSIGN:                05 Apr 2001 01:32:47 GMT
lee moves to REASSIGN:                  06 Apr 2001 02:55:34 GMT
Wes recused (panelist):                 06 Apr 2001 10:14:35 GMT
Assigned to Razl (panelist):            14 Apr 2001 02:27:14 GMT
Razl recused (panelist):                21 Apr 2001 02:27:14 GMT
Assigned to Crito (panelist):           04 May 2001 08:16:04 GMT
Crito moves to REASSIGN:                04 May 2001 13:52:30 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN):              05 May 2001 07:50:09 GMT


Panelist Steve's Arguments:

In the Appeal of CFJ 1279, I move to overturn pTang's Judgement and
re-assign the CFJ to new a Judge.

In my view, three separate but related issues are raised by CFJ 1279.

1. What kind of announcement is required to trigger the Complacent
   Oligarchy provisions?

Rule 1965 states:

      As soon as possible after an Ordinary Proposal fails quorum, the
      Assessor shall announce that it has done so.  Upon such an
      announcement, the Proposal becomes Democratic, its Voting period
      is extended to end seven days after the announcement, and all
      Votes previously cast on it are cancelled.

This raises the question: when R1965 speaks of "such an announcement",
what kind of announcement is it referring to?

There are actually three distinct possible answers to this question:

(a) an announcement that an Ordinary Proposal has failed Quorum;
(b) an announcement that an Ordinary Proposal has failed Quorum that the
    Assessor is required to make;
(c) an announcement that an Ordinary Proposal has failed Quorum that the
    Assessor is specifically required to make by R1965.

Judge pTang evidently rejected (a) in eir Judgement, but e doesn't
distinguish between (b) and (c). My personal view is that (a) is a much
more natural reading of the Rule, but that's neither here nor there. On
its own this does not provide a sufficient reason for overturning the
Judgement, since although I disagree with pTang's reading of the Rule,
it does seem to be an interpretation that pTang was within eir rights as
a Judge to make.

2. Was there an announcement of the relevant kind?

Here, Judge pTang's failure distinguish between (b) and (c) becomes more
of a problem. Judge pTang asserts without argument that this
announcement was not one that Assessor t was required to make. But did e
mean "not required at all" or "not required by R1965"? This is an
important question.

Judge Syllepsis ruled in CFJ 1278 that Assessor t's original
announcement of the results did announce the results of P4111, and by
the same reasoning it follows that the results of P4112 were announced
in the same message. (See the Evidence section for t's announcement, and
Syllepsis' discussion in CFJ 1278.)

It is true that the Assessor was not required to make the announcement
by R1965, for that Rule, which was created by the announcement that
P4111 had passed, was not yet in effect when P4112 failed Quorum, which
was at the end of the Voting Period of P4112, some days earlier.

But pTang does not address the question of whether the announcement of
the results might have been required by Rule 208, which requires the
Assessor to publish "all the votes cast" on each Proposal. There is a
significant line of argument that publication of "all the votes cast"
would amount to an announcement that the Proposal had failed Quorum.
Hence it might qualify as an announcement of the relevant kind for the
purposes of R1965, under reading (b) above.

3. In what order were the results for Proposals 4111 and 4112 announced?

There's one last wrinkle. All the above relies on the suppressed premise
that R1965 was actually in effect when the results of P4112 were
announced. If it wasn't, then the CFJ should be Judged trivially FALSE.

As mentioned above, R1965 was created when the passage of P4111 was
announced. In the ordinary course of events, Assessor t would have
announced the passage of P4111 before announcing the passage of P4112,
in the summary of the results at the top of eir Report.

However, as the discussion in CFJ 1278 shows, in this case events did
not take their ordinary course. The quick summary at the top of Assessor
t's announcement had the results for the Proposals reversed, and it was
not until later in the Report that the results were correctly announced,
in the section in which the individual votes are tabulated. In that
section, however, Assessor t put the Ordinary Proposal 4112 on the left
and the Democratic Proposal 4111 on the right. If we follow normal
left-to-right parsing, then we might think that the results for P4112
were announced before those for P4111. If that's right, then R1965
wasn't even in effect when the results for P4112 were announced.

It's my view that pTang's Judgement does not give sufficient
consideration to the issues raised above. I think it's appropriate that
they be considered by a new Judge. Hence the decision to overturn and


Panelist Steve's Evidence:

1. Assessor t's announcement of the results of Proposals 4111-4112.

2. CFJ 1278.


Panelist lee's Arguments:

Sorting through the messed up report that made the supposed announcement
and going over the arguments that my fellow Justice, Steve, has pointed
out, I cannot but rule that this Judgement is overturned and that the
Clerk of the Courts should reassign it to another judge.  I am not quite
sure that Assessor's report announced anything at all in its confusion,
but it may have.  pTang's lack of analysis of even the jumbling in the
report leaves me to wonder if e considered that aspect at all.
Significant questions that should be answered before the statement's
truth may be fully judged remain unasked, let alone answered.  The
report itself should be analyzed carefully by the next judge.


Non-Panelist Wes's Arguments:

We find Steve's Arguments to be convincing enough to warrant serious
consideration by a Judge. We therefore move to OVERTURN and Reassign.


Panelist Crito's Arguments:

I find that Steve and lee have covered everything that I would have said about
this situation.  So, without further ado, I also move to Overturn and Reassign